The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience
Abstract
A variety of models that incorporate attitudinal, social, and control factor have been advanced to explain IT usage, of which the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is the most well know. One goal of such models is to develop diagnostic tools to predict information systems acceptance and facilitate design changes before users have experience with a system. However, empirical tests of these models have generally focused on either systems that were already in use by the study participants, or systems that the participants were familiar with, such as word processing packages and spreadsheets. Given this, it is unclear (1) whether models such as TAM are predictive of behavior for inexperienced users and, more importantly, (2) whether the determinants of IT usage are the same for experienced and inexperiened users of a system.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Subjective norms tend to be more influential during early stages of innovation implementation when users have limited direct experience from which to develop attitudes (Taylor and Todd, 1995).”
From An Analysis of Factors Affecting on Online Shopping Behavior of Consumers (2012) · cites this paper as Taylor and Todd, 1995
In the citing paper
“The role of intention as a predictor of behavior is well established in the literature (e.g. Sheppard etal. 1988; Taylor and Todd 1995).”
From Understanding the determinants of novel technology adoption among teachers: the case of 3D printing (2020) · cites this paper as Taylor and Todd 1995
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
(1975) · PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) · Cited by 36,737
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
(1980) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 25,810
User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 · Cited by 25,709
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2.3.192 · Cited by 9,150
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815
Self-citation(1993) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 7,690
Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach
Steiger, J. H. (1990) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 · Cited by 7,408
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Barclay, 1996, The Partial Least Squares Approach to Causal Modelling, Technology Studies
- Eagly, 1993, The Psychology of Attitudes
Cited by
Sorted by citations
User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward A Unified View1
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036540 · Cited by 45,035
Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. A. (1995) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.6.2.144 · Cited by 8,815
Self-citationTrust and TAM in Online Shopping: An Integrated Model1
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/30036519 · Cited by 8,635
Venkatesh, V., & Morris, M. G. (2000) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250981 · Cited by 2,780
Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model
Legris, P., Ingham, J., & Collerette, P. (2003) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(01)00143-4 · Cited by 4,250
Metadata
- Authors
- Taylor, S., & Todd, P.
- Affiliations
- Queen's University (CA)
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 1995-12-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 561-570
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W1503436739
- Cited by
- 2,891
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 63 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 107 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 130 · 2021: 157 · 2020: 124 · 2019: 132 · 2018: 137 · 2017: 110 · 2016: 128 · 2015: 175 · 2014: 182 · 2013: 147 · 2012: 156
- FWCI
- 19.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Technology Adoption and User Behaviour
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Technology in Education
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
- Keywords
- information technology use, technology acceptance model, prior experience, user experience, user behavior prediction, inexperienced users, social influence, controlling factors, attitudinal factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
